Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 30, 2010 10:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

I'm no great Beatles fanatic (phoney Beatlemania has definitely bitten the dust here) but Paul wrote with John? Really? I thought they pretty much did their own thing. Yoko said in an interview that Lennon used to lie awake at night wondering why McCartney's songs were more popular than his. Certainly Macca had much more of a gift for melody, and continued to demonstrate that for a few years beyond the demise of the Fab Four. The only song I can think of off the top of my head that utilised both their talents to telling effect was Day in the Life.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 30, 2010 11:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Beatles

This is a big debate in itself...
Paul cowrote with John for lots of songs up to '65, and for a few songs afterwards. (Even on the final Let It Be & Abbey Road, we see them sometimes joining their separate songs together into one bigger composition - I've Got A Feeling, that "side 2 medley".)
Then remember that they weren't writing in isolation, but working on each other's songs as far as arrangements, suggestions, etc. I think Paul's songs would have turned out much the same, but a lot of John's Beatles songs were changed quite a bit by Paul's ideas & contributions. (Day in the Life is one example, Strawberry Fields another, & so on.) And the extent to which they pushed each other to write better & toss out the weaker stuff can't be underestimated.
Then there's the question: how much did Paul's songwriting change after 1970? You could make the case that his Beatle songs sound stronger simply because they're next to John's. For instance, on the White Album, if you took out all Paul's songs as a "solo Paul white-album", you'd have an album of mostly lightweight fluff. (Whereas an album of just John's would still be a masterpiece.) But, once his songs are surrounded by John's & George's, they have a rather different & darker feel.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 30, 2010 12:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Are you serious? Blackbird, Back in the USSR and Helter Skelter are lightweight fluff? And 'an album of just John's would still be a masterpiece'? Come off it. It seems to be the music buff's default posturing position that Lennon was some sort of transcendent genius ripe for sainthood, whereas McCartney is dismissed out of hand as a makeweight because he had the nerve to write actual songs with tunes (oh how quaintly naive) as opposed to sour-faced extended whinges. And quite frankly anyone who has the bare-faced effrontery to unleash the horror that is Imagine on an unsuspecting world has got one hell of a lot to answer for.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Mar 30, 2010 12:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

It is funny how this has gone over the years, around the time of Imagine, ( yeah, might be over ratted, but still maybe the best post Beatles Beatle album , I prefer All Things Must Pass), myself) John looked like the genius , and Paul the dummy , and Paul's next 2 albums didn't help ( Wild Life, and Red Rose Speedway ), and people applied this to the Beatles , retroactively . A few more years, and Johns' solo star had been tarnished a bit by some lackluster efforts, and Paul had bounced back with Band on the Run, and Venus and Mars , and I think people began to question the "John=smart, Paul-dumb" evaluation .
Not too may people could write as seemingly slight,but ingeniously beautiful song as "Mother Nature's Son" . Most of theBeatles career , I'm prefer John's songs, but Paul WAS amazing .

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Yea, but he did give us Hey Jude, easily among the most overrated songs in rock history (well, actually, maybe Imagine does take the cake). Then again, a nice gesture to Julian since his pop was pretty much an ass to his mum and their son.

That said, I like Macca and appreciate that he keeps experimenting and exploring.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PlnMkwws6A&;feature=related

Also, for an old geezer, he still puts on quite a show. His set at Coachella was pretty damn good and it was hard for all the "hipsters" and "scenesters" not to grin and sing along (kind of like Tom Petty at Bonnaroo).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Here is where I defn agree with you, and I buy, though it may be a myth, that L&Mc WERE the team...alone, I think both suck, and JL moreso...just didn't want to say it outloud til someone else did...

Now, as to the debate of HOW the two of them worked, I dunno (ie, did they only write "together" early? Then it was more of "show me this!" then "take that shit away!" or whatever version you like, I still think they worked wonders while in the same band til bout 68...(sorry!)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Hey I was expecting a visit from the Lennonite Assassination Squad after that post; glad to know you're standing with me - all 6'3 and 230 pounds and sharpened bolts in hand.

Anyway, here's an interview Macca gave at the time of the White Album where he talks about the writing process.

http://www.dmbeatles.com/interviews.php?interview=66

Worth looking at alongside the Lennon/Playboy interview Larry linked for me earlier:

http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/dbjypb.int4.html

I'm sure the two of them did a lot of their own mythologising about how the songs came about. We can only speculate as to how much of the post-Beatles decline resulted from the lack of cross-fertilisation when they were no longer working together and how much was simply down to both men's most creative period having simply passed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Bingo!

Why, in no time I'll be claiming EVERY post of value you EVER posted here (hmmm, well...okay, maybe just one or two jokes...).

If I were to write the history of mss I collaborated on with coauthors 25 yrs ago I KNOW it would be very diff from their version...this is one aspect in which the post modernist twits got something (w)right! Dumbasses...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jobygoob Date: Mar 31, 2010 8:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I went on to those links and read some of those interviews, what a great repository of info. I saw that John Lennon, in a 1980 interview and Paul McCartney in a 90s interview both continued to profess that the song Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds was not written about LSD. They swore up and down, Lennon until right before his death even, that they didn't even notice the initials until well after the song was recorded. Why would they continue to perpetuate this denial twenty to thirty years after the song was recorded? It is such an obvious fabrication as to be completely ludicrous. Is it a case of a story being repeated so often that they have convinced themselves it is true, and they really believe it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 31, 2010 8:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Re Lucy - you might just want to take a look at this and then see what you think. Maybe they were telling the truth all these years...

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/beatles/article6852494.ece

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jobygoob Date: Mar 31, 2010 10:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I remember that news story of the girl, and completely believe that story of Julian's picture being the inspiration for the song. But seriously, how could anyone possibly believe that the song was not a (very thinly)veiled reference to an LSD trip? Why would the Beatles continue to disavow the connection thirty years later?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 31, 2010 10:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Given the fact that they were a bunch of scally Scousers it's more than likely that they knew exactly what they were doing when they titled that song. If you ask me, it's a wind up - and they got exactly the reaction they hoped for. As I said about Garcia yesterday, they had a mischievous sense of humour.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 31, 2010 12:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

typical spineless. let somebody else say what you think then make a lame follow up....

do you even have an original thought ever? Could you act on it?

Sorry your glasses must be fogged up.. JL and PM wrote fantastic songs. Hunter/Barlow/Garcia/wire are barely in the same league! That what make teh GD such a phenomenon, not the lyrics the MAGIC!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 31, 2010 1:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Wait a minute, GN--thought you were another poster, jerking me around (though I don't know where the "spineless" comes from if you've read any of my posts)...

Now, you completely mis-read what I said above now that I re-read your flame post: I said EXACTLY that JL & PM WERE great song writers, TOGETHER, until the late 60s...what's not to get? I was only pointing out that when they wrote on their own, they sucked...

In fact, if you asked me, I rank those two vs Hunter and the DEAD, yep, I agree, they exceed them...now, I happen to like the DEAD a lot more, but I'd grant that...

Think you need to start reading a little more clearly...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 31, 2010 1:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

got you confused ehh! Spineless was just because you where waiting for somebody else to say it so you could then agree....
Anyway, I'm not taking things very seriously. I agree with what you say in your last post so whats to argue about?




Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 31, 2010 2:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Being the so-called 'somebody else' who you allege Tell spinelessly agreed with, I feel I'm entitled to interject here. You are so far out of line compass and sextant won't get you back on course. Tell doesn't wait for someone to agree with, he agrees because he really does agree, and he is man enough to acknowledge when someone else has made a good point. If he doesn't agree, he has the knowledge and the ability to quote chapter and verse as to exactly why he doesn't agree and he will state his disagreement in a generally polite and respectful manner that is diametrically opposed to your uncouth display. You owe him an apology for not according him the respect he extended to you. You will note also, I trust, that in this instance I am according you more respect than I really think you deserve. Next time I won't.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 31, 2010 1:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

To say JL ALONE (without PM) sucked was what I agreed with--have you heard of sarcasm?

This post was modified by William Tell on 2010-03-31 20:43:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 31, 2010 2:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I was once told that I invented sarcasm.... it's not true..

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 31, 2010 2:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

I can believe that...you're just not good enough.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: fritzie101 Date: Mar 31, 2010 2:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

some audio -
http://www.archive.org/details/JamSession-SelectedSongsFromLetItBeFilmShootMastered-1969
http://www.archive.org/details/TheRealRooftopConcert-LetItBeFilmShoot1969
http://www.archive.org/details/ADayNTheLifeSession
http://www.archive.org/details/LetItBe-RadioProgrammeAndExclusiveRaritiesMix

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 31, 2010 12:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Hey Butt Nutt--read the sequence as to "timing" of posts and you'll see I said it ALL bout Paul...that's what STARTED the whole sequence that was just so much "addition" to my original thought...right?

Sorry, you just got confused by the out of order sequence on the board.

But, yeah, I'll agree with Rob most any day--even before he posts...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 31, 2010 12:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

yes here is more of your style

-insults (fueled by your insane paranoia!)
-back pedal..

All you want is more hot air up your behind. Well from me all you get is an ice cube...

Now go think if something original to say...










Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 31, 2010 1:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Yep; you got me pegged--does make it easier here though, eh?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 30, 2010 8:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Yes, quite serious. Helter Skelter is lightweight fluff, as are most of the Beatles' songs. It's also one of my favorite songs. You probably define "fluff" differently!

I think you might be misunderstanding me.... One thing I meant was, Paul's White Album songs as a group tend to sound a lot like a Paul solo album, catchy & sweet & sometimes silly. John's songs seem much more varied than he'd usually be on his solo albums; I think there's a lot of strong stuff there (hence the 'masterpiece' claim), but that's just an opinion.
Of course there are exceptions, like Paul's rockers you mentioned - after all it's a Beatles group album with a huge range of songs, not just a bunch of solo tunes thrown together as John sometimes claimed.
You could have also interpreted me as saying not that Paul was the 'lesser makeweight', but that John's the one who needed more help from Paul!
Mainly I just wanted to say that the same song can come across differently in a different context - a banal claim, no doubt. Many a Beatles classic would be little-regarded if it had been on a '70s solo album instead....

One of Paul's quirks is that he likes to do 'genre' songs, so we saw a lot of those on that album - the western song, the '20s song, the Beach Boys rocker, etc.... He's very good at doing those kinds of compositions; whereas John on that album (with some exceptions) was going more for 'personal' songs that "said" something. To you that's sour-faced whining; so be it, that doesn't matter.
As a songwriter, Paul likes - I don't know the technical words - kind of swooping melodies that cover a lot of vocal range. Whereas John tended to write a lot of songs that hovered around one note - very easy to sing, not much melodic range. So I think that might be one thing you're referring to when you say Paul wrote "actual songs with tunes".
You might like Paul's usual optimistic tone more, as well. John in many of his later-Beatle songs swung back & forth between meaningless gobbledegook and bitter, sad or satiric songs - sometimes both at once. Paul tended to stay more on an even, often comic keel. He also didn't write many of the "social message" songs that John took so seriously in the early '70s!

Yes, John inflicted Imagine on us. There were a bunch of good songs on that album. He also did the Plastic Ono Band album - whiny to be sure - catchy lightweight fluff, not so much. Paul inflicted much worse on us (in the early '70s, too) than Imagine. George of course, took everyone by surprise with All Things (which was almost all songs J&P had rejected from Let It Be since they didn't want to do them)....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 31, 2010 2:13pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

You are in fact basically right.
You need a day job!
cheers...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Apr 2, 2010 11:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Late, but I have to give the nod to George Harrison for the best post-Beatles career.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: groovernut Date: Mar 31, 2010 10:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Beatles

Yeah but man where they good a light weight fluff. Honestly and objectively, the dead could have learned from Lennon/McCartney when it came to writing songs...

Cream puff confusion!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 30, 2010 11:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

Agree with both of you Rob & LiA; my point was only that Paul did better pre 60s with his writing, but in spite of "bad writing" did VERY well public wise, post 70 (right)?

I do know enough of the debate to think they wrote together early on, and later, it might have been more of JL et al. nixing the bad?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Mar 30, 2010 12:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

Robert,

Here is an excerpt from the interview that John Lennon did with Playboy shortly before he was killed. John admits that he tended to lie earlier about how the two of them wrote songs together although if you read the whole interview you will see that he and Paul had a gentlemen's agreement from when they were 15 to include each other on their songs which explains how Give Peace A Chance is a Lennon-McCartney song and there were Beatles songs that were written by one or the other.

PLAYBOY: "Then let's talk about the work you did together. Generally speaking, what did each of you contribute to the Lennon-McCartney songwriting team?"

LENNON: "Well, you could say that he provided a lightness, an optimism, while I would always go for the sadness, the discords, a certain bluesy edge. There was a period when I thought I didn't write melodies, that Paul wrote those and I just wrote straight, shouting rock 'n roll. But, of course, when I think of some of my own songs... 'In My Life' or some of the early stuff... 'This Boy.' I was writing melody with the best of them. Paul had a lot of training, could play a lot of instruments. He'd say, 'Well, why don't you change that there? You've done that note 50 times in the song.' You know, I'll grab a note and ram it home. Then again, I'd be the one to figure out where to go with a song... a story that Paul would start. In a lot of the songs, my stuff is the middle-eight, the bridge."

PLAYBOY: "For example?"

LENNON: "Take 'Michelle.' Paul and I were staying somewhere, and he walked in and hummed the first few bars, with the words, you know-- (sings verse of 'Michelle') and he says, 'Where do I go from here?' I'd been listening to blues singer Nina Simone, who did something like 'I love you!' in one of her songs and that made me think of the middle-eight for 'Michelle.' (sings) 'I love you, I love you, I lo-ove you...'"

PLAYBOY: "What was the difference in terms of lyrics?"

LENNON: "I always had an easier time with lyrics, though Paul is quite a capable lyricist who doesn't think he is. So he doesn't go for it. Rather than face the problem, he would avoid it. 'Hey Jude' is a damn good set of lyrics. I made no contribution to the lyrics there. And a couple of lines he has come up with show indications of a good lyricist. But he just hasn't taken it anywhere. Still, in the early days, we didn't care about lyrics as long as the song had some vague theme... she loves you, he loves him, they all love each other. It was the hook, line and sound we were going for. That's still my attitude, but I can't leave lyrics alone. I have to make them make sense apart from the songs."

PLAYBOY: "What's an example of a lyric you and Paul worked on together?"

LENNON: "In 'We Can Work It Out,' Paul did the first half, I did the middle-eight. But you've got Paul writing, 'We can work it out/We can work it out' --real optimistic, y' know, and me, impatient: 'Life is very short and there's no time/For fussing and fighting, my friend....'"

PLAYBOY: "Paul tells the story and John philosophizes."

LENNON: "Sure. Well, I was always like that, you know. I was like that before the Beatles and after the Beatles. I always asked why people did things and why society was like it was. I didn't just accept it for what it was apparently doing. I always looked below the surface."

PLAYBOY: "When you talk about working together on a single lyric like 'We Can Work It Out,' it suggests that you and Paul worked a lot more closely than you've admitted in the past. Haven't you said that you wrote most of your songs separately, despite putting both of your names on them?"

LENNON: "Yeah, I was lying. (laughs) It was when I felt resentful, so I felt that we did everything apart. But, actually, a lot of the songs we did eyeball to eyeball."

PLAYBOY: "But many of them were done apart, weren't they?

LENNON: "Yeah. 'Sgt. Pepper' was Paul's idea, and I remember he worked on it a lot and suddenly called me to go into the studio, said it was time to write some songs. On 'Pepper,' under the pressure of only ten days, I managed to come up with 'Lucy in the Sky' and 'Day in the Life.' We weren't communicating enough, you see. And later on, that's why I got resentful about all that stuff. But now I understand that it was just the same competitive game going on."

Here is the link for the entire interview:

http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/dbjypb.int4.html

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

Thanks for that elb, but read it many times (sorry--this debate for me has raged for years).

What do YOU think it means?

I think it means the TEAM mattered...the myth about it was one thing and another, and even this interview is in part, mythology/postmodernist drivel/revisionism (just like all my writing five yrs after the fact of ANY event I was involved in was...that's why field biologists have fieldnotes, but this is ANOTHER story!), so we must still, analytically try to pick apart what actually happened during the writing, which I still, IMHO, interpret as "teamwork"...

Or, is that your conclusion too?


Hope that doesn't come off badly...you know I love you, and in a good way.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

if TEAM mattered, they could have done their publishing like the clash.

... i live by the river...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:22pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

...in a van...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:34pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

Just to tie it all back together

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/3412362/Chris_Farley_Interview_Paul_Mc_Cartney_SNL

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 30, 2010 1:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

Hey, so you think you and C K have everything in hand? I have to root agin ya, but fig you'll understand...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Mar 30, 2010 2:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

We'll see. This team has shown a lot of heart and it's been fun seeing Zoubek play so well in the last few months of his career. I hope we cut down some more nets, but either way, a satisfying season. Had the Final Four been elsewhere, I would have gone (like to play around on river walk in San Antonio, knock around Seattle, etc). Not to denigrate the fine metropolis of Indianapolis, but it didn't warrant the flight, hotel and ticket costs. I've been fortunate to do a bunch of Final Fours so will watch from the comfort of my couch (which is way more comfortable if we lose - Tampa was a long walk and car ride back to the hotel to pack and leave).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Mar 30, 2010 6:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

I loved San Antonio as a site although didn't love my seats in the Alamo Canyon. Still probably my favorite site. Thought the St Pete dome was a pit and while i probably enjoyed the game more than you, I stayed in Orlando for that one so the family could have fun. New Orleans was well, New Orleans although coming from Ann Arbor to watch CWebb call that TO made it a bit rough on Bourbon Street. My understanding is that game never happened right? Finally Minneapolis had the worst weather but a nice town and I suspect a result you were more pleased with.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Mar 30, 2010 6:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

I read this when it came out in book version back in the early '80s. I have no reason to believe that John was lying at this point to make it seem like he and Paul were better buddies than people believed. Clearly he takes some serious shots at George in this interview so it wasn't about being nice. So I guess I don't buy the revisionist history theory. I think the "we worked alone" might have been the post-break up revisionism. Kind of like Townsend talking down Tommy for 20 years and then finally admitting it was his best work. I think the revisionism was the denial.

So I believe the team was important although I do believe that both could have been stars on their own. Probably not as big as the The Beatles though. Of course this raises that question about Weir and Garcia. Both essential to the Grateful Dead's success but would both have been stars without the other? Garcia? undoubtedly. Weir? hmmmmm.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 30, 2010 8:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

Thanks for taking that the right way, elb...in the end, sounds like you, LiA and I are all on the same page...maybe even "team working" via the web (har, har).

Anyhow, hard to know exactly how it went down, of course, but I think LiA puts it most concisely, and since it fits with my take (even when expressed poorly as I did above), I am inclined to say "that's a wrap!" and leave it at that...

Again, was a bit cranky with some biz emails (concerning contentious hires) at the time I responded to you...my bad.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Mar 31, 2010 4:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Robert Hunter

I would not have even noticed if you hadn't mentioned it. Oddly enough I was dealing with a similar issue yesterday although not by email.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 30, 2010 8:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: J&P

Well, up to '65 John & Paul wrote many of their songs in close proximity, or actually cowriting piece by piece, so the early Beatles is definitely teamwork. Revolver in '66 is when it starts to change & we get an album of "Paul songs", "John songs", "George songs" that are radically different from each other...

I think there was still a lot of teamwork happening up til the end. Just saying, "John wrote this song," isn't too significant by itself, because the others could add so much. Paul said once, "George did a lot more than just sit around waiting for the solo!" - and Paul added quite a bit in terms of arrangement & production & melodic nudges to John's songs. (In John's bitter '70s days, he accused Paul of "ruining" his Beatles songs this way!)
And also, the Beatles didn't approach some of their later albums in terms of just individual songs - they were meant to be medleys, where one song affected how you heard the next one.

I agree J&P would probably both have been (smaller) stars on their own; but fortunately for everyone, they landed in the same band.